Three agendas for changing the public stigma of mental illness.

Abstract

Antistigma programs may be guided by 3 differing agendas: services (promote treatment engagement), rights (help people achieve rightful goals), and self-worth (facilitate self-worth and efficacy). This study examined the construct validity of this perspective by examining the factor structure of importance ratings of the 3 agendas. The study examined how importance might be viewed differently by the population as a whole versus a subsample of people who reported previous experience with mental health services and hence could be directly harmed by stigma. 373 individuals recruited using Mechanical Turk completed importance ratings for each of the 3 agendas. Measures of public stigma were completed to examine concurrent validity of importance ratings. Those who reported taking medications for a psychiatric disorder were divided into a separate group and completed a measure of self-stigma. Outcomes seemed to confirm the factor structure of the 3 agendas model thereby offering partial support for the framework. Group analyses showed the services agenda was viewed as more important than rights or self-worth. People with mental health experience viewed the services agenda as more important than the other 2. However, dividing the mental health group into low and high self-stigma revealed that those with low self-stigma rated the rights agenda as more important. Conclusions and Implication for Practice: Participants with lower self-stigma identify the harm brought by stigma and thus endorse rights and self-worth more than those with higher self-stigma. Implications of these findings are discussed to assist to prioritize agendas for public health campaigns. (PsycINFO Database Record